• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why was Jesus not educated...?

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Yep this is why it's not surprising to me the "he" never wrote anything but does strike me as kind of odd that none of his contemporaries did.
Yes, if not Jesus himself, then at least somebody. Odd how there is no shortage of writings after the fact.





Q and Thomas tell us that there were those that felt the need to write down and compile a collection of sayings attributed to a Jesus by their very existence, or at least the undisputed existence of the Thomas gospel of sayings which includes much of Q. Why would it not occur at least to one or a few members of Jesus' entourage to take note, or someone out of the enormous crowds of people that formed around Jesus and followed him everywhere he went?
 
Last edited:

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Yep this is why it's not surprising to me the "he" never wrote anything but does strike me as kind of odd that none of his contemporaries did.
Really? In a culture where almost everybody is illiterate and everybody thinks the best way to transmit knowledge is orally?

Actually, it is no small "miracle" that someone minor poor peasant from galilee IS written about by a contemporary (Paul), not to mention Mark and Josephus which are also quite early.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Yes, if not Jesus himself, then at least somebody. Odd how there is no shortage of writings after the fact.

However, everybody knows that the father of the Greek rational and critical thought, Socrates, never wrote a line of philosophy. Jesus and Socrates have often been compared. One of their common points is that we know only indirectly what they said. Others wrote their sayings down for them. Socrates preferred a “living” philosophy made of conversations with people he met in the street. He had no school and no books. For him, philosophy cannot be enclosed in formulas; it is a research made orally and in common.

Consequently, we must be aware that philosophy is not so evidently related to literacy. This is also the case for Socrates’ best pupil, Plato.

"Plato has pointed out the dangers of written works. In his Seventh Letter he states that he never himself wrote in “the sublime questions of philosophy” (341B– D) and that no serious man will seriously write on serious problems, because he would so lay his thought open to the misunderstanding of the crowd (344B)….
Further, in the same dialogue Socrates himself remarks that a written work is a child without father— it cannot protect itself (275E)—and that writing is deceptive like painting; the latter depicts beings that are falsely living and cannot answer questions; likewise, the former draws up books that can signify but one thing and are unable to provide explanations by themselves, shades of meaning, and so on (cf. Protagoras 329A). Moreover, the book escapes its creator’s control; it soon becomes everybody’s toy and is exposed to the danger of losing its true meaning. Thus, for Plato, the oral discourse is better than the written one. Pp. 83-84.

Solère, Jean-Luc. “Why did Plato Write?” in Draper, Jonathan A (Ed). Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity.
Leiden: Brill, 2004. p 83-91..





Q and Thomas tell us that there were those that felt the need to write down and compile a collection of sayings attributed to a Jesus by their very existence, or at least the undisputed existence of the Thomas gospel of sayings which includes much of Q. Why would it not occur at least to one or a few members of Jesus' entourage to take note, or someone out of the enormous crowds of people that formed around Jesus and followed him everywhere he went?

Because of a general feeling in antiquity that writing was inferior to oral transmission?
 

MW0082

Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
Really? In a culture where almost everybody is illiterate and everybody thinks the best way to transmit knowledge is orally?

Actually, it is no small "miracle" that someone minor poor peasant from galilee IS written about by a contemporary (Paul), not to mention Mark and Josephus which are also quite early.
40-50 years after his Death IS NOT quite early......

How do yoo explain the numerous artifacts we have from this area and era and before that show we had language long before Jesus. yet the son of god was illiterate... really...?
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
40-50 years after his Death IS NOT quite early......

It is for antiquity. The biography of pythagoras was written about 700 years after pythagoras lived. And Mark was written <40 years after Jesus died. Paul even earlier.

How do yoo explain the numerous artifacts we have from this area and era and before that show we had language long before Jesus. yet the son of god was illiterate... really...?
I don't believe he was the son of god. As for why we have "so little" about Jesus, this is a question that starts with a fallacy as anyone who has studied classics or the first century would know. Orality was the dominant mechanism for transmitting cultural, educational, and personal knowledge.
 

MW0082

Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
It is for antiquity. The biography of pythagoras was written about 700 years after pythagoras lived. And Mark was written <40 years after Jesus died. Paul even earlier.


I don't believe he was the son of god. As for why we have "so little" about Jesus, this is a question that starts with a fallacy as anyone who has studied classics or the first century would know. Orality was the dominant mechanism for transmitting cultural, educational, and personal knowledge.
No, Mark was written at least 42 years after Jesus Death, not before and Paul was written around 62c-70c so around 30 years maybe more seeming it cannot be actually proven...
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
No, Mark was written at least 42 years after Jesus Death, not before and Paul was written around 62c-70c so around 30 years maybe more seeming it cannot be actually proven...

The most common date for mark is c. 70 CE (some place it late 60s, some a little later than 70). Jesus most likely died in the early 30s. Making it likely that Mark was written <40 years after Jesus' death. Paul's writings start in the 50s and he was converted in the mid 30s, very soon after Jesus' death.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Really? In a culture where almost everybody is illiterate and everybody thinks the best way to transmit knowledge is orally?

Well, again, I'm not surprised he never wrote anything. That never bothered me and and I don't see the point (for the most part) of those bringing it up. If he existed then I suspect his preaching was transmitted by him and others orally.

Actually, it is no small "miracle" that someone minor poor peasant from galilee IS written about by a contemporary (Paul), not to mention Mark and Josephus which are also quite early.

While Paul was a contemporary he had no 1st hand knowledge of an earthly Yeshua.

I like the book of Mark in a way because there's seems to be less of the mythicism in it compared to the others but what is it, for you, that makes Mark credible?

Josephus was "early on" but wasn't a contemporary. His work is still contested. The majority aren't contesting it but it's contested none the less.
 
Last edited:

Oberon

Well-Known Member
While Paul was a contemporary he had no 1st hand knowledge of an earthly Yeshua.

That's true. But he knew Jesus' family and followers.

I like the book of Mark in a way because there's seems to be less of the mythicism in it compared to the others but what is it, for you, that makes Mark credible?

I don't find any of the gospels completely credible, but my work on orality in the Jesus tradition, as well as studies on gospel genre, have convinced me that we are entitled to a less skeptical view of the sources than, say, Bultmann or Mack suggest. For my view on the reliability of the gospels along with notable references see my thread here

Josephus was "early on" but wasn't a contemporary. His work is still contested. The majority aren't contesting it but it's contested none the less.

Apart from Price, I don't know of any scholar in any field who contests the shorter reference to James, the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ. There may be a few, but can you really call it contested if in a century of critical scholarship and among thousands of thousands of experts in various fields, only 2 or 3 have written non-academic works doubting its authenticity?
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Obviously Socrates and Jesus are not the same person and as for Pythagoras, very little reliable information is known about him, if any. Pythagorean theorem is contributed to him but no one can say with any confidence who he was since he's obscured by legend.



No, Mark was written at least 42 years after Jesus Death, not before and Paul was written around 62c-70c so around 30 years maybe more seeming it cannot be actually proven...
That Mark was written at least 42 years after Jesus' death is to assume a priori that Jesus lived when Mark states that he lived. Paul gives us no clues as to when he would have lived on earth. Curiously, there appears to be no shortage of writings about Jesus after the fact.
 
Last edited:

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Obviously Socrates and Jesus are not the same person

No kidding. But they have some important similarities. The point, however, is that even a highly literate person like Plato distrusted writing as a means of communicating ideas. Why would we expect more literature from a less educated grooup?


and as for Pythagoras, very little reliable information is known about him, if any. Pythagorean theorem is contributed to him but no one can say with any confidence who he was since he's obscured by legend.

And yet he was an influential person living in amongst the literate. So why didn't he write?




Curiously, there appears to be no shortage of writings about Jesus after the fact.

Oh my! Jesus lived for 30 years and was a missionary for far less. Yet somehow it is curious that in the few years jesus preached there isn't anything written about him, but in the c. 2000 years after a whole lot is. Amazing. The increase in literature couldn't have anything to do with a greater span of time and increasing influence of the movement...no it's definitely evidence that Jesus never lived.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
References to Plato and Socrates are red herrings, the Jesus we read of in the gospels had a high regard for the written word and used it to make a point or to back up his actions on numerous occasions. Mark 11:17 "Is it not written:
'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
References to Plato and Socrates are red herrings

Why?


the Jesus we read of in the gospels had a high regard for the written word andused it to make a point or to back up his actions on numerous occasions. Mark 11:17 "Is it not written:
'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'

Maybe you should make a better study of graphei in the context of first century judaism before reading into it determinations on the importance of literacy. Start with Carr, David McLain. (2005). Writing on the Tablet of the Heart : Origins of Scripture and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I'm still trying to figure out why a person who believes that Jesus never existed, wants to discuss his level of education. :facepalm:

I see nothing wrong with it. You will continually find some theist touting they don't believe the TOE but go into lengthy pseudo-scientific debates with those who are well educated in the TOE.

I'm not a believer in his existence and yet that should not preclude me from engaging in an open dialogue about the man while considering and weighing the current evidences. I'm not a believer in greek, roman, sumerian, hinduism or myan mythologies but does that mean I can't discuss those mythologies....Just curious....
 

tomato1236

Ninja Master
I see nothing wrong with it. You will continually find some theist touting they don't believe the TOE but go into lengthy pseudo-scientific debates with those who are well educated in the TOE.

I'm not a believer in his existence and yet that should not preclude me from engaging in an open dialogue about the man while considering and weighing the current evidences. I'm not a believer in greek, roman, sumerian, hinduism or myan mythologies but does that mean I can't discuss those mythologies....Just curious....

I don't think the argument is that there's something wrong with it, but it certainly does make one wonder why, or in other words, what is the motive? Curiosity? Curiosity about what? The ability of theists to defend their faith?
 

MW0082

Jesus 4 Profit.... =)~
I don't think the argument is that there's something wrong with it, but it certainly does make one wonder why, or in other words, what is the motive? Curiosity? Curiosity about what? The ability of theists to defend their faith?
Curosity only, and it is not to bait or cause issues. I find these things to be contradicting of my own thoughts. So I am asking....
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Curosity only, and it is not to bait or cause issues. I find these things to be contradicting of my own thoughts. So I am asking....

Yet you've got answers. I've already provided some references, and could provide plenty more on literacy rates, how orality was preferred to writing, what education consisted of in the greek, roman, and jewish worlds, etc. If you were after answers, you might follow these up. If you only want to point out contradictions, contradictions which exist only if you are unfamiliar with literacy, orality, and education in the first century, then of course you would just ignore the answers.
 

tomato1236

Ninja Master
Yet you've got answers. I've already provided some references, and could provide plenty more on literacy rates, how orality was preferred to writing, what education consisted of in the greek, roman, and jewish worlds, etc. If you were after answers, you might follow these up. If you only want to point out contradictions, contradictions which exist only if you are unfamiliar with literacy, orality, and education in the first century, then of course you would just ignore the answers.

Is that where the word "ignorance" comes from? Willfully ignoring?
 
Top